New VIP publishing system, a reaction to FOSTA
Pretty obvious now that I think about it. Founder is not directly responsible for publication, VIP members are responsible. Basically at the same time that FOSTA law is passed. Founder is protecting his own ass and I don’t blame him. Kudos. Might not be enough, but it’s one step in the right direction for him.
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
17 comments
I’m not naive enough to think that simply not mentioning extras will keep LEO away from a club, but as the OP suggests, it could reduce liability on a review site.
The new review workflow certainly reduces founder's admin chores, but it is not a FOSTA protection.
I haven’t found any with names and acts yet.
Founder was obviously on TUSCL before the rest of us, and shadowcat was already prolific when I started reading and posting here. Other than Chili Palmer and alucard I don't really remember anyone else from those days, and alucard isn't around anymore. I guess vincemichaels, artcollege, and clubber were also more active now that I think about it. But what I mostly remember is the glossary wasn't much different than it is now. And all of that stuff from way back when is online and available. I was online in the Usenet days, and a lot of those alt groups make the stuff posted here look straight-laced.
I get it that folks are getting rattled with this and that LE and policy maker bullshit going on, but nobody forced anyone to self publish a bunch of "locker room talk" on the open Internet. Whatever issues each member here is working through about their own behavior, please stop imposing that on the rest of us. If I go back and look at every review I've posted here about hundreds of different clubs, maybe I'll find something that I'd word differently now. But what I won't find is bunch of bragging about this or that act to impress a bunch of strangers. That's a choice each person can make for themselves.
Every time I walk into a new club I've got over 500 other clubs I can compare it against. When I get around to writing a review, it's whatever I remember by then minus a whole lot of other stuff that any person could write. If it's been a while (or never) since a club got reviewed I'll try to put in a little more detail, but otherwise it's not that serious. YMMV. For my two cents on what discretion might look like, I'll just offer a rundown I shared about my thoughts on TJ from early 2009. It's a TUSCL article posted at https://www.tuscl.net/article.php?id=683 after I'd been there several times. Some stuff changes. Some stuff doesn't.
I won't say that I take this as mission critical and life would certainly go on if the site went away, but I do find it to be very useful and I suspect that others do as well. So with that said, I don't think it is such a bad thing to discuss basic review standards, including setting bare minimum bars for what is acceptable or steering users away from explicit shit that is dangerous in the current environment.
I don't know what's going on today, but I just ran into a string of them this morning. I suspect that TER and usasexguide refugees are starting to look for other places to share their experiences. What's also interesting is that they can remember every single detail about the sexual acts themselves, but cannot seem to recall anything else at all,. including what they paid for the fun, what the other girls were like, the overall state of affairs in the club, etc.
SJG